Major changes to the Code of Nomenclature—Melbourne, July 2011

TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1495–1497
McNeill & Turland • Melbourne Congress: Major changes to the Code
X V I I I I N T E R N AT I O N A L B O TA N I C A L CO N G R E SS
Major changes to the Code of Nomenclature—Melbourne, July 2011
John McNeill1 & Nicholas J. Turland2
1 Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, and Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
2 Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-0299, U.S.A.
Author for correspondence: John McNeill, [email protected]
introduction
When decisions of a Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress (IBC) are presented in Naturenews
(Cressey, 2011) and prompt an editorial in the journal itself
(Origin of species, 2011) they must be of unusual significance.
This was indeed the case for several of those taken at the recent
XVIII IBC in Melbourne, Australia.
Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al., 2006) require the decision of a plenary
session of an IBC as proposed by its Nomenclature Section. The
Nomenclature Section of the XVIII IBC met from 18 to 22 July
2011 in the University of Melbourne, and its decisions were approved by the final plenary session of that Congress on 30 July
2011, taking immediate effect except where otherwise limited
(see below). We outline here the most-significant changes in the
Code and introduce three other papers presenting in more detail
the nature and implications of some of the decisions taken. Full
details of the decisions of the Nomenclature Section on all the
published proposals and of additional proposals made and accepted in Melbourne, along with the results of the preliminary
mail vote, also appear in this issue (McNeill & al., 2011).
Title—no more the ICBN
Reflecting the view, particularly amongst mycologists, that
the word “Botanical” was misleading and could imply that the
Code covered only green plants and excluded fungi and diverse
algal lineages, it was agreed that the name be changed from
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to International
Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. There was
never formal recognition of “ICBN ” as an abbreviation for the
former title and none was proposed for the new title, but the
abbreviation “ICN ” does not compete with the abbreviations
of any of the other codes of biological nomenclature.
Electronic publication of all
nomenclatural acts permitted
from 1 January 2012
The Nomenclature Section approved overwhelmingly the
series of proposals prepared by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication set up by the Vienna Congress in 2005 (Chapman & al., 2010). This means that it will no longer be necessary
for new names of plants, fungi, and algae (and designations of
types) to appear in printed matter in order to be effectively published—effective publication being a fundamental requirement
of the Code for acceptance of any nomenclatural act. As an alternative, publication online in Portable Document Format (PDF)
in a publication with an International Standard Serial Number
(ISSN) or International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will
be permitted. The Special Committee had proposed 1 January
2013 as the starting date for the new rules (the beginning of the
year following the expected publication of the new Code), but
the Section believed implementation so important that it decided
to bring the date forward to 1 January 2012.
Rules were also approved to prevent changes to a particular
electronic publication once it is issued, to prevent preliminary
versions being effectively published, and to make clear the date
of publication. Also approved was a series of recommendations
on best practice, particularly with regard to long-term archiving.
In order to ensure that the user community is fully aware
of these important changes, particularly as they will take effect prior to the publication of the Melbourne Code, a paper
detailing them is being published almost simultaneously in
16 journals that publish, at least in part, electronically, with
translations currently being prepared in Chinese, Portuguese,
Russian, and Spanish. This paper is included in this issue of
Taxon (Knapp & al., 2011).
Latin—and English!
It is currently necessary to provide a description and/or a
diagnosis in Latin, in order to validly publish the name of a new
taxon, e.g., a species, except for names of fossils. The Nomenclature Section modified this so that, for names published on or
after 1 January 2012, the description and/or diagnosis must be in
either English or Latin. This will apply to names of new taxa in
all groups covered by the Code. It is already the requirement for
names of new fossil-taxa published on or after 1 January 1996.
The circumstances under which the Section made this decision and the details of its effect are provided in a separate
paper in this issue (Smith & al., 2011).
One fungus, one name
For over 100 years, the Code has permitted separate names
for asexual and sexual phases of those fungi whose life history
1495
McNeill & Turland • Melbourne Congress: Major changes to the Code
involves morphological expressions so different that, until recently, it was commonly impossible to link one to the other.
Molecular studies have changed this situation very substantially, and more and more connections are being made, so that
the asexual phase (the anamorph) and the sexual phase (the
teleomorph) of the one fungal species are increasingly being
identified.
As this was an exception to one of the basic principles
of the Code, that a taxon circumscribed in a particular way
can have only one correct name, it has become increasingly
anomalous to have separate names for the anamorph and the
teleomorph phases of the one fungal species, and the concept
of one name for one fungus has become increasingly supported
by mycologists.
The Nomenclature Section agreed to delete this anomalous
provision (contained in Art. 59), so that different names applying to asexual and sexual morphs of the same fungus compete
for priority in the same manner as other names (i.e., based on
date of publication). Because, currently, the name applied to
the whole fungus (the holomorph) has to be one that is based
on a teleomorphic element, an additional new set of rules was
accepted that will allow lists of widely used names to be protected en masse, or lists of names of uncertain application to
be rejected en masse, so as to minimize the nomenclatural
disruption that would otherwise be caused by applying the rule
of priority strictly.
One fossil, one name
Although the details have changed over time, the Code
has also for many years had special rules for names of fossils, reflecting their frequent fragmentary occurrence. Most
recently, separate names could be applied to “morphotaxa”,
each of which represented a particular part, life-history stage,
or preservational state. This has meant that even if organic connections could be demonstrated between different fossils, there
was no clear provision for naming the more complete organism.
The Nomenclature Section adopted a set of proposals
(Cleal & Thomas 2010a, b) by which the whole concept of
morphotaxa is abandoned, so that when two or more morphotaxa can be shown to belong to the same organism, their names
compete for priority in the usual way.
Registration of fungal names
Since 2004, the online database MycoBank (www.myco
bank.org) has become increasingly used by mycologists to register new fungal names and associated data, such as descriptions
and illustrations. Upon registration, MycoBank issues a unique
number which can be cited in the publication where the name
appears. This number is also used by the nomenclatural database
Index Fungorum and serves as a Life Science Identifier (LSID).
The Nomenclature Section in Melbourne approved a
new rule in the Code whereby, on or after 1 January 2013, the
publication of a new fungal name (names of new taxa, new
1496
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1495–1497
combinations, replacement names, and names at new rank)
must include a citation of “an identifier issued by a recognized
repository” in order to be validly published (i.e., to have any
status under the Code). The mechanism for implementation of
the new rule is for the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi to
appoint “one or more localized or decentralized open and accessible electronic repositories to perform this function”. That
Committee also has the power to remove such repositories at
its discretion; and even to set aside the requirement should the
repository mechanism cease to function.
Acacia
In 2005 the Vienna Congress approved conservation of
the name Acacia with A. penninervis as the type, a name applicable to an Australian species. This meant that the name
Acacia could be used for the more than 1000 Australasian
species when the various clades traditionally treated within a
broadly defined Acacia were recognized as separate genera.
Previously, the type of Acacia had been A. scorpioides, applicable to an African species belonging to a genus of fewer
than 100 species, meaning that the Australasian genus had to
be called Racosperma.
The validity of the procedure used in Vienna to effect this
conservation was questioned by some, so that a resolution of this
issue was anticipated in Melbourne. All the procedures and decisions of the Vienna Congress were endorsed when the Melbourne
Nomenclature Section voted by a clear majority (68%) in favour
of accepting the Vienna Code as a basis for its discussions.
Because of the widespread debate on the typification of
Acacia, a number of attempts at compromise had been published. Two of these were also discussed in Melbourne but
neither was successful. Therefore, the type of Acacia is correct
as printed in the Vienna Code, i.e., A. penninervis; for those,
the majority, that subdivide Acacia s.l., the correct name for the
genus into which the former type, A. scorpioides (= A. nilotica),
falls is currently considered to be Vachellia. A fuller account of
the discussions on Acacia in Melbourne is provided by Smith
& Figueiredo (2011) in this issue.
Appendices of the Code
As more and more conserved or rejected names have been
added to the Appendices of the Code, each successive printed
edition has become bulkier. A set of proposals (Redhead, 2010)
sought to limit publication of the Appendices to electronic format in online databases, with hard-copy updates published in
Taxon, and the option of periodic publication of the full Appendices. These proposals were accepted by the Nomenclature
Section, but amended to become a more general mandate: “The
Editorial Committee has the option to produce the Appendices
to the Code in electronic form only.” Of course, the Code and
its Appendices will anyway be published electronically, as was
done for the Tokyo, St. Louis, and Vienna editions, when the
online version is released, probably in 2013.
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1495–1497
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our attendance at the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII IBC in
Melbourne was supported in part by the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy (IAPT). Thanks are also due to Paul van Rijckevorsel
(Utrecht, Netherlands) for helpful comments on an earlier version of
this report.
Literature Cited
Chapman, A.D., Turland, N.J. & Watson, M.F. (eds.). 2010. Report
of the Special Committee on Electronic Publication. Taxon 59:
1853–1862.
Cleal, C.J. & Thomas, B.A. 2010a. Botanical nomenclature and plant
fossils. Taxon 59: 261–268.
Cleal, C.J. & Thomas, B.A. 2010b. (101–103) Proposals to modify the
provisions of the Code for naming plant fossils. Taxon 59: 312–313.
Cressey, D. 2011. Botanists shred paperwork in taxonomy reforms. Naturenews 20 July 2011. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110720/
full/news.2011.428.html.
Knapp, S., McNeill, J. & Turland, N.J. 2011. Changes to publication
McNeill & Turland • Melbourne Congress: Major changes to the Code
requirements made at the XVIII International Botanical Congress
in Melbourne: What does e-publication mean for you? Taxon 60:
1498–1501.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth,
D.L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D.H., Prado, J., Silva, P.C., Skog,
J.E., Wiersema, J.H., & Turland, N.J. (eds.). 2006. International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code): Adopted by the
Seventeenth International Botanical Congress Vienna, Austria,
July 2005. Regnum Vegetabile 146. Ruggell, Liechtenstein: Gantner.
McNeill, J., Turland, N.J., Monro, A.M. & Lepschi, B.J. 2011. XVIII
International Botanical Congress: Preliminary mail vote and report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals. Taxon 60:
1507–1520.
Origin of species. 2011. Nature 475: 424.
Redhead, S.A. 2010. (098–100) Proposals to limit hardcopy publication
of Appendices II–V. Taxon 59: 311.
Smith, G.F. & Figueiredo, E. 2011. Conserving Acacia Mill. with
a conserved type: What happened in Melbourne? Taxon 60:
1504–1506.
Smith, G.F., Figueiredo, E. & Moore, G. 2011. English and Latin as
alternative languages for validating the names of organisms covered by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants: The final chapter? Taxon 60: 1502–1503.
1497